Loiacono v. Allied Partners Management LLC
- Vyskocil
- 1:25-cv-07828
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Loiacono v. Allied Partners, Judge Vyskocil denied plaintiffs’ emergency request and kept the joint status letter due October 6, 2025.
The order affects the plaintiffs and all defendants because it governs their joint status letter, requires that letter by October 6, 2025, and warns that noncompliance may result in sanctions.
What happened
In Loiacono et al v. Allied Partners Management LLC et al, the plaintiffs asked for emergency instructions about a joint filing, an in-person pretrial conference, and explanations from two defendants that had not filed responses. Plaintiffs’ counsel said the defendants had not cooperated in preparing the filing and disputed its required format.
The court clarified that its earlier orders required only a joint letter about the case’s status and procedural history. They did not require a report of the parties’ meeting about discovery, a proposed case-management plan, or the format plaintiffs proposed. The court also said there was no need for emergency relief.
Judge Vyskocil denied the emergency request, kept the joint letter due October 6, 2025, and said the matter would proceed normally. She again told the parties to work cooperatively and warned that violations of court rules or orders could lead to sanctions, including monetary penalties, dismissal, or limits on claims, defenses, arguments, or evidence.
The detailed version
- Loiacono v. Allied Partners Management LLC · No. 1:25-cv-07828
- Vyskocil
- Oct. 1, 2025
Background
Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a letter captioned as a request for an emergency order and a conference under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(c), which concerns pretrial case-management matters. Counsel disputed the format and content of a joint filing that the court had previously ordered. Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that the filing should instead use a form for reporting the parties’ discovery meeting and proposing a case-management plan.
The letter also alleged that the defendants had not cooperated in preparing the joint filing. It asked the court to require the proposed format, schedule an in-person pretrial conference between October 10 and October 15, 2025, and require Allied and 200 E. 79 Street Condominiums to explain why they had not filed responses and whether another defendant could file joint submissions for them.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that its September 22 and September 29 orders required the parties to file a joint status letter, not a report of a discovery meeting or a case-management plan. The required letter concerned the status and procedural history of the case. The court also said the parties were not required to use the format attached to plaintiffs’ filing.
The court noted that it had received two separate letters describing disputes that arose while the parties were attempting to prepare the joint letter. It stated that the joint letter remained due on October 6, 2025, and that the matter would be handled in the normal course.
Ruling
Judge Vyskocil ordered that the plaintiffs’ request for emergency relief was DENIED. The court again admonished the parties to work cooperatively. It warned that failure to follow the order, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Southern District of New York’s Local Rules, the court’s individual rules, or discovery and other obligations could result in sanctions, including monetary penalties against counsel or the parties, dismissal, or preclusion of claims, defenses, arguments, or evidence.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.